Structured programming says you should only ever have one return statement per function. This is to limit the complexity. Many people such as Martin Fowler argue that it is simpler to write functions with multiple return statements. He presents this argument in the classic refactoring book he wrote. This works well if you follow his other advice and write small functions. I agree with this point of view and only strict structured programming purists adhere to single return statements per function.

使用单一出口点可以降低圈复杂度，因此，从理论上讲，可以降低在修改代码时引入错误的可能性。然而，实践往往表明需要更务实的方法。因此，我倾向于只有一个出口点，但如果可读性更好，允许我的代码有多个出口点。

I've seen it in coding standards for C++ that were a hang-over from C, as if you don't have RAII or other automatic memory management then you have to clean up for each return, which either means cut-and-paste of the clean-up or a goto (logically the same as 'finally' in managed languages), both of which are considered bad form. If your practices are to use smart pointers and collections in C++ or another automatic memory system, then there isn't a strong reason for it, and it become all about readability, and more of a judgement call.

正如Kent Beck在《实现模式》中讨论保护子句时指出的那样，使一个例程具有单一的入口和出口点……

是为了防止可能的混淆 当你在许多地方跳来跳去 同一例程中的位置。这让 当应用到FORTRAN或 汇编语言程序 有大量的全球数据，甚至 理解哪些语句是 执行是一项艰苦的工作……使用小方法和大部分本地数据，它是不必要的保守。”

我发现用保护子句编写的函数要比一长串嵌套的if then else语句容易理解得多。

有时出于性能考虑，这是必要的(我不想获取不同的缓存线，就像继续一样;有时)。

如果你不使用RAII分配资源(内存、文件描述符、锁等)，那么多次返回很容易出错，而且肯定是重复的，因为释放需要手动执行多次，你必须仔细跟踪。

在这个例子中:

function()
{
    HRESULT error = S_OK;

    if(SUCCEEDED(Operation1()))
    {
        if(SUCCEEDED(Operation2()))
        {
            if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3()))
            {
                if(SUCCEEDED(Operation4()))
                {
                }
                else
                {
                    error = OPERATION4FAILED;
                }
            }
            else
            {
                error = OPERATION3FAILED;
            }
        }
        else
        {
            error = OPERATION2FAILED;
        }
    }
    else
    {
        error = OPERATION1FAILED;
    }

    return error;
}

我会把它写成:

function() {
    HRESULT error = OPERATION1FAILED;//assume failure
    if(SUCCEEDED(Operation1())) {

        error = OPERATION2FAILED;//assume failure
        if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3())) {

            error = OPERATION3FAILED;//assume failure
            if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3())) {

                error = OPERATION4FAILED; //assume failure
                if(SUCCEEDED(Operation4())) {

                    error = S_OK;
                }
            }
        }
    }
    return error;
}

这当然看起来更好。

这在手动资源释放的情况下尤其有用，因为在哪里和哪些释放是必要的是相当直接的。如下例所示:

function() {
    HRESULT error = OPERATION1FAILED;//assume failure
    if(SUCCEEDED(Operation1())) {

        //allocate resource for op2;
        char* const p2 = new char[1024];
        error = OPERATION2FAILED;//assume failure
        if(SUCCEEDED(Operation2(p2))) {

            //allocate resource for op3;
            char* const p3 = new char[1024];
            error = OPERATION3FAILED;//assume failure
            if(SUCCEEDED(Operation3(p3))) {

                error = OPERATION4FAILED; //assume failure
                if(SUCCEEDED(Operation4(p2,p3))) {

                    error = S_OK;
                }
            }
            //free resource for op3;
            delete [] p3;
        }
        //free resource for op2;
        delete [] p2;
    }
    return error;
}

如果在没有RAII(忘记异常问题!)的情况下使用多个出口编写这段代码，则必须多次写入删除。如果你用}else{then 这有点难看。

但是RAII使得多个出口资源问题变得毫无意义。

一般来说，我尝试从一个函数中只有一个出口点。然而，有时这样做实际上会创建一个比必要的更复杂的函数体，在这种情况下，最好有多个出口点。它确实需要基于结果的复杂性进行“判断”，但目标应该是在不牺牲复杂性和可理解性的情况下尽可能减少出口点。